This article captures the real failure of Obama's presidency....a total lack of understanding of power of Economics, the blend of socialist policies he employs will ultimately implode back to the poor he is pretending to speak for. The impunity of capitalism can never be avoided totally, rather than try to share miserly across the board what he should do is to safeguard Americas competitive edge which is seriously being eroded. He should be thinking like an upcoming economy rather than a mature one.

This article confirms the critical need to define terms. What do "Fair" and "Fair Share" mean to a concensus? The truims that words meand things and that language is not transparent have never been more evident.

Instead of lowering the bar by class warfare how about raising the bar by encouraging people to make money? A really bold tax plan: anyone who makes a million dollars in salary or in personal revenue in 3 of 5 years, never has to pay federal income tax again.
Talk about an incentive to get out poverty!

Obama is the food stamp president, 46.5 million people on food stamps in Obama’s economy. Gasoline up 100%, basic food up 40%+! Obama loves it! Makes more people dependant on government.

When is the last time you saw a homeless person pushing a shopping cart creating jobs? Employing people? Creating new products & technology? Developing new medicines?

Why do 47+% of people pay NO income taxes?
Why do the top 1% pay 39% of all federal taxes?
Why do the top 25% pay 86% of all federal taxes?
Why do the top 50% pay 97% of all federal taxes?

Lowering or increasing taxes does normally NOT affect how many people are hired or fired.
Should there be an correlation between tax-cuttings and new positions? Could you provide me with figures: How much must the cuttings be to achieve an increase of 5% employment?
I appreciate your help in this matter.

And I cannot understand why a billionaire is taxed at around 17% (income) half of a secretary, around 30%. I am not so familiar with the US tax rules. But I read it in the times magazine.

Furthermore taxes do not create jobs. You should think about resettle manufacturers to the US, instead of tax cuttings. The more employees, the more pay taxes. But you can also make an chart of the endless tax-cuttings which almost affect the rich. Why haven't you?
And how many jobs have been established due to the cuttings? Following your logic it should have been millions of high-trained positions.

But as we learnt, tax-cuttings were not reinvested but saved somewhere in the world - in Switzerland?

Maybe it are your endless tax-cuttings that ruin your country.
Since there is no money for things needed. Everything has its price.
Security, crimes, poor infrastructure and education are a results of too less cash because of
decreasing incomes resulting from tax-cuttings for the rich. A few save and the most of you pay the price.

Simple minds cannot understand complex issues plus add in your profound ignorace about the US tax system. You get one bit of information about 17% and you think that is the whole picture?

There are so many tax breaks for children, daycare etc that 40% of taxpayers don't even have to pay any taxes. As you know the USA's birthrate is higher than Germany so tax breaks for children have a big impact on one's tax returns.

Also there are other reasons why the USA can afford to give so many tax breaks, North America is blessed with an abundance of natural resources unlike Germany. Wide open spaces of wildnernes compeletly untouched by man. This Saturday I drove for about 14 hours outside the city and saw no man made structures, just wilderness in all its splendid glory with a few Indian reservations doting the scene here and there.

There is no excuse of ignorance in this day and age of the internet.

Here is some reading to remedy your ignorance about how the US can afford all those tax breaks. Too bad Germany has to be a poodle to Putin's Russia to keep the gas flowing.......

"Bloomberg News reported last week that “the U.S. is the closest it has been in almost 20 years to achieving energy self-sufficiency. ... Domestic oil output is the highest in eight years.

The U.S. is producing so much natural gas that, where the government warned four years ago of a critical need to boost imports, it now may approve an export terminal.”

As a result, “the U.S. has reversed a two-decade-long decline in energy independence, increasing the proportion of demand met from domestic sources over the last six years to an estimated 81 percent through the first 10 months of 2011.”

*** This transformation could make the U.S. the world’s top energy producer by 2020, raise more tax revenue, free us from worrying about the Middle East ****

No coutry has ever taxed it's way to economic growth. Higher taxes drive business away. UK just increased taxes to 50% on the self employed and saw a 500+ million pound drop in tax revenue.

Ronald Reagan reduced federal income taxes and the result was creation of over 30 million jobs. Lowering taxes does create jobs. It works.

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988). During Reagan's administration, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.4%, with the rate reaching highs of 10.8% in 1982 and 10.4% in 1983, averaging 7.5% over the eight years.

During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 which lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 70% to 50% and the lowest bracket from 14% to 11%.

As to Warren Buffet. Warren Buffet pays a 17% income tax rate, and his secretary pays 33%, a lie because there's no 17% bracket, and capital gains is taxed at 15%. The original money going into the investment was previously taxed at 36%. That means he is actually paying 53% taxes on his money. Several stories have been written on this, he basically is lying.

If his secretary is paying 30% taxes on her income, someone calculated she must be earning over $200,000!!! Not bad income for a secretary!

I do not know exactly at which percentage an income is taxed in the US.
I cited times magazine. I when you say the quote is a lie, well, tell this Mr. Buffet.

Lets come back to bottom line.
What is the point of this? Mr. Buffet stressed that capital income is fare less levyed than working income. And this puts capital income in an advantage and working income at an disadvantage. And this inequity is the core of his statement.

And isn't there a candidate for president which is also taxed at around 17%?
Your link stated details that would confirm my statement above.
Pardon me, but I do not care about the exactly percentage.

There is no correlation between taxes and rate of employment.
Companies do not hire or fire due to higher oder lower tax rates.
In the end your thesis would mean zero tax = full employment.

You may correct me, but after all these tax cuttings the USA, the US must be a paradise with nearly no unemployment. Has there been a time in which you paid less taxes than today?

Your link stated that Mr. Buffet is taxed at around 17%, as he says.
Isn't there a candidate for president who is taxes at around the same percentage?

So what is the point of Mr. Buffets statement?

It was just stressed that capital income is far less levyed than working income.
Should there be facts with which you are able to refute this imparity, so please let me know. And this inequity should not be pushed aside (by being narrow minded) since it is the essence.

Has there been a time in which you were taxed lower than today?
Do not be pettifogging.

I asked you once more this question since it is the essence of his statement:
Why should someone pay less taxes because he earns an capital income?
And your statement refers to working payroll income - and there you are right:
Income taxes. Federal income taxes are progressive, which means your income is taxed at higher rates as you make more money. Let's take a married couple filing jointly as an example. In 2011, after deductions and exemptions:
• the income between $0 and $17,000 is taxed at 10 percent;
• the income between $17,000 and $69,000 is taxed at 15 percent;
• the income between $69,000 and $139,350 is taxed at 25 percent;
• the income between $139,350 and $212,300 is taxed at 28 percent;
• the income between $212,300 and $379,150 is taxed at 33 percent;
• the income above $379,150 is taxed at 35 percent.
But once again you did not distinguish between working income and capital income. And what can applied on Buffet's income?
"Taxes on investments. Okay, now we're getting closer to Buffett's main point here, and that's taxes on investments. The tax rates on investments tend to be lower than taxes on regular income. If you make money buying and selling stocks or receiving dividends from stock ownership, those earnings are generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True."
Source:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-bu...
I would say Mr. Buffet is as smart as your are and I would not doubt that he is unable to
calculate his taxation thought he pays a lot of super-well educated tax counselors.

You proved my point - there is no 17% tax bracket. Buffet lied. His dividend/investment income money, was previously taxed at a higher rate before he invested the money.

But why do you even care how much money the "rich" make? The "rich" pay far more in federal taxes per person, than the non-rich. Percentages mean nothing since the evil rich pay far more than their fair share of taxes.

Why is everyone "equal" under the law but not equal when it comes to paying taxes? Why are people punished for being successful?

How many jobs do poor people create with their investment money? Poor people only create government jobs at taxpayer expense to support being poor.

Pardon me, but I proved your link and my outcome is different than yours.
I try it the third time. You calculate with payroll income. But the majority of his income is from capital and there is a few from payroll. Together he is taxed at around 17%.
I trust in you that you will recognize the distinction between payroll and capital income.
For my as a foreigner it is understandable so it shall be easy for you to cope with.
I trust in you. However, just read it.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-bu...
I find it simply interesting how a few very very rich are put at an advantage and someone like you could not care less about it. Never thought about the disparity and why you are taxed so high compared to a Private Equity manager?
Well it is your country and must live with this imparity.
I just wonder about the way you think about it - it is interesting sharing differential views.

You wanted to know how lower taxes can create more jobs. Well, because the goal is to make money.

An example to show the process:
In a company you have various levels of workers but for simplicities sake, we will use a small company with one owner and 4 workers.
Let us say the company makes 1 million dollars a year (after expenses, not including employee pay and taxes). If they pay 30% tax, then 300,000 goes to the government and the rest ($700,000) goes to the people, we will say 300,000 for the boss and 100,000 per worker. If the tax were decreased by 10% then of the 1 million dollars generated that year, only 200,000 would go to the federal government. That leaves an extra 100,000 to go somewhere. Yes, the owner could pocket the money and he would do well for himself. Remember, his goal is to make more money. If instead of keeping it, he could use it to employ another worker. With 4 workers producing 1 million dollars (or 250,000 per worker) a fifth worker would make him an extra 250,000. Now yes, that would be taxed at 20%, leaving him with 200,000. That is twice as much as he would have if he kept the extra 100,000 from the tax decrease. If my goal were to make money, that would be the logical thing to do.
Remember, this is a hypothetical situation, taxation is much more complex as are the reasons to hire an additional employee. Market status, supply and demand, ect. These factors are taken into account to see if hiring another employee is profitable or not. But, if the revenue isn’t available to begin with then the possibility doesn’t come up. The lower taxes make it possible, not garenteed.
Now, 0% tax doesn’t mean 100% employment just like 50% tax doesn’t mean 50% employment. No tax means no government and no protection for its citizens.
That is the correlation between taxes and employment.

Perhaps I'm nitpicking but "as a foreigner it is understandable so it shall be easy for you" is just as insulting as "simple minds". You are saying that if I don't "understand" as you do there is something wrong with me because it isn't "easy". Just so you know.
Anyway, on to the pertinant subjuct, the discussion was the very rich paying a lower percent tax rate than the rich? First, I don't pay any federal tax so who am I to complain?
As far as "fairness" or "equality" is concerned, the top 1% already pay nearly half the revinue of the federal government, can I realy expect them to do more? Is that fair? Is it just?
If Mr. Buffett is so concerned about him paying less than his secratary in taxes, he can write the federal government a check.
Capital gains and payroll taxes are two different things and theirfore, taxed differently.
Payroll tax is: Taxes come out of my paycheck.
Capital gains is: I use my money (which was taxed when I got my paycheck) to buy something. I then sell that something and if I sell it at a high price then I bought it I have to pay taxes on what I make.
Remember the goal is to make money, and if I don't make enough (which is different for every person) then it isn't worth it for me to do it again.
Now one gets into the stock markent and investing, which to truly understand one should probably take a class on so I will stop there.

Well my first thought, as I read you answer was, do we debate over corporate tax or income taxes for people?

Mr. Buffet was taxed for his (personal) income. So please help me, if I am wrong, but I did not understand that he referred to corporate taxes in his statement. He said: He is taxed lower than his secretary.

Just take a look at your country and how the fortune is allotted. So you can reckon how well your tax system works. And a policeman or a hospital nurse work as hard as a billionaire. So why should there be an advantage for people living from capital income?

Concerning corporate taxes - I would like to ask you how taxes have developed in the US over 50 years?

"Perhaps I'm nitpicking but "as a foreigner it is understandable so it shall be easy for you" is just as insulting as "simple minds". You are saying that if I don't "understand" as you do there is something wrong with me because it isn't "easy". Just so you know."

Before stating someone an liar - it was not you - you should simply understand the source you refer to. And I tried to draw his attention to the points of payroll income and capital income. But it was ignored. And then you come to the point where you start wondering, because a native speaker is not able to understand its own language.
This is not about being stupid - I would never say this to anybody. But if you understand as a non native speaker, and I am at lever upper intermediate, a text better than a native speaker, than you start to wonder.

"Why should there be an advantage for people living from capital income?" First, I'm not a financial major so I don't know all the rules and details but from what I understand corporate taxes are separate from capital gains.
Remember, on PolitiFact site you quoted they said "So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments." Most policemen or hospital nurses don't fall into rich category. It would be more accurate to say that a billionaire pays less in tax than a millionaire.
One of the reasons capital gains tax is low is to encourage investing. If you really want to understand how investing and the stock market work you should take a class on it from someone who know more than I do. I just know that the more people invest in a company the more chance it has to make money and encourage growth. As the company grows it can hire more people.
Billionaires are not the only people who can invest in the stock market, though that is how many of the richest people today make the most money. I, who make so little that I don't pay any federal tax, could do well and in a decade or so have millions of dollars, which I can use to make even more.
As far as the ucsc and latimes articles, yes, I know the richist people in America have vastly more money than I do, but, as long as they obtained it legally, who am I to punish them for being successful. And remember, they share a huge part of the tax burden already.http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/12/how-much-taxes-are-paid-by-th...
Making them pay more in taxes doesn't mean that I will have more money, it means the government will.

But their income mostly base on capital income. And why is a police officer or a nurse less successful than a stockholder? Someone whose salary is based merly on capital income is subject of capital income taxation.

Compared to those men and women whose income merly base on working are taxed as follows:

Income taxes:
- the income between $17,000 and $69,000 is taxed at 15 percent.

Taxes on investments:
- those earnings are generally taxed at 15 percent.

While the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is 35 percent, average rates that a household in the upper income bracket pays is less. Much of the earnings of those in the top income bracket come from capital gains, interest and dividends, which are taxed at 15 percent. Also because only income up to $106,800 is subject to payroll taxes of 15.3%, which are paid by the employer and employee, individuals in the upper income bracket pay on average an effective rate not much different than that of other income brackets. The effective tax rate paid by an individual in the upper income bracket is highly dependent on the ratio of income they earn from capital gains, interest and dividends. The table below shows the average effective income tax rates for different income groups for 2007.

Yes, capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. That fact has been established. This is done so as to encourage investing. That is the purpose of the difference. The choice is to keep it low and encourage investing or increase capital gains tax and discourage all the small people from investing. Would you rather 1 million people pay you one dollar or 100 people pay you 100 dollars? That is the choice.

Seriously? Not every industry affords the opportunity to make a million dollars in salary. I get what you're saying, but if this were a real thing, how many young people would decide to be teachers? If you want a job that will make you rich, then fine...but why should we punish people for wanting to work in an industry where that kind of financial reward just isn't possible?

Correction the recession is soley a Republican mess. The American financial institution nearly collapsed under former president George W. Bush presidential tenure. Obama inherited the mess caused by republican philosophy of NO regulation. Uncontrolled credit swaps and sup prime mortgages would not have happened if the system was properly regulated. History repeats itself, the great depression started under a republican president's tenure and democrat FDR inherited the economic mess.

People invest to make money, they are not going to stop investing if the capital gains tax is increased. By the way Obama raised around two hundred million dollars last election by donation of $5 or $10 from the "small people". So if I was a public company I would like the "small people" to invest. PS. Obama won that election if you didn't notice.

Housing market problems can be DIRECTLY traced back to presidents Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton, and Congressmen Barney Frank & Chris Dodd – all Democrats, who passed laws, made policies and pushed banks and lending institutions into making loans to unqualified people or face the wrath of the federal government. I saw this firsthand and know it for a fact.
Economy began falling at the END of President Bush’s second term in 2008. During Bush’s presidency, unemployment reached 3.6%, but Democrats forget to remember that fact.
The mortgage industry is a HIGHLY regulated industry so best go recheck your “facts” from new sources since the ones you use are clearly worthless. Having purchased several homes, the paperwork involved is ridiculous.
President Ronald Reagan inherited a much larger mess from Jimmy Carter and turned it around with sound economic growth policies – Obama just has no clue or deliberately wants to destroy the American economy. 46.5 MILLION people in America receive food stamps! An increase of over 40% since Obama took office. Gasoline is up 113% since Obama took office.
FDR’s economic policies made a recession into a DEPRESSION and stalled recovery for years until WWII pulled the USA out of a Democrat caused depression.

Spoken like a true republican, base your facts on fiction and pretend its the truth. Comic books is not valid sorce for your so called "facts". Please get educated before replying. FDR's policies helped america recovery from the great depression, ask any historian. I flip houses for a living I know whats involved its pretty straight forward but it seems you prefer to buy your home over a handshake? How exactly do laws push banks to ignore common sense give mortgages to unqualified people. Look at Canada, its financial institutions are much more regulated than America, as result Canadians were not exposed to sub prime mortgages, Canadians bank did not participate in credit swaps. Thats why Canadian realestate market continued to flourish during the recession and Canadian banks remained well capitalized. Yes millions of Americans are on food stamps because the economy collapsed during Bush's tenure which caused massive job losses and blame the increase in gas price on the oil companies like Exxon, Chevron, not Obama.

Ok, 200 million in small (5 or 10 dollar) donations. What about the other 500 million? Seems if I could choose which to receive, lots of small investments or several large ones, I'd go with the 500 over the 200 personally. But perhaps that's just me.
And as for your "get educated" comment, the 700+ million Pres. Obama received was a number I got from the Federal Election Commission. Subtract your 200 million from it and I was left with my 500 million.
le toca...

Those stats you just referred to only demonstrates how unbalanced our economy is. ANY policy should aim to decrease the disparity between the haves and have nots. I'm not a socialist, but it's good policy when more people are able to meaningfully participate in the economy and can afford to pay taxes. I used to vote Republican, but it's apparent to me that Republican policies of the past 30 years have coincided with HUGE increases in wealth disparity, which is why 50% of Americans pay 97% of taxes, as you pointed out. The problem isn't that 47% of people pay no income taxes, but the problem is why can't they afford to?

All moral judgements are subjective. We all want to shape the world around our own desires. That is part of the human condition. So the question of what is fair in any given situation is never going to be easy. However, I belong to Rotary International and I take a position known as our Four Way Test. This guiding principle governs all our activities and it may be some help in the context of this discussion.

1. Is it true? 3 2. Is it fair to all concerned? 3.Will it build good will and better relationships? 4. Is it beneficial to all concerned?

"If one is prepared to accept substantial inequalities in outcome, it follows that one is also prepared to accept substantial inequalities in opportunity."

No, it does not. One can accept inequality of outcome precisely because one
DOES support equality of opportunity.

Refer back to your example of the doctor and the hippie. You concentrated purely on the tax/leisure side, and completely neglected the benefits that accrue from making those six figures a year for Mr. Doctor, or the relative lack of them for poor Mrs. Potsmoker.

However, as you commented, we don't feel any innate unfairness in this, it just what they chose. What matters was that they, presumably, both went to the same school, received the same education, and then chose to go their different ways.

Now if we change the anecdote to white, suburban, privately-schooled Mr.Doctor and black, raised-by-single-parent, underfunded-inner-city-schooled Mrs.Potsmoker, it becomes unfair, or at least less fair. I accept the disparity in your example, and decry it in mine. What's the difference?

Inequality in opportunity. Accepting one as a unavoidable fact does not mean we have to accept the other.

I understand you were talking about conservatives in general, many of who would, as you said, balk at the measures needed to accomplish real equality of opportunity. But I consider myself a conservative, and I wouldn't.

You characterization of the issue may be correct on the basis of political realities, but it certainly is not morally or logically consistent.

"Refer back to your example of the doctor and the hippie. You concentrated purely on the tax/leisure side, and completely neglected the benefits that accrue from making those six figures a year for Mr. Doctor, or the relative lack of them for poor Mrs. Potsmoker."

Totally agree. I think we'd head down a dangerous path if we started speculating which professions/how much money you have to be making to be 'adding value' to society. The pot-making/smoking hippie in question has already (willingly) chosen a tougher financial path with her profession of choice. Additionally, the author implies that she is making a living from selling her pots, implying that the people who are purchasing them do in fact value them. One person's value might be different from another's.

And granted, yes, surgeons do save lives, but I work in healthcare so I immediately see problems with that scenario. For example, how many of that surgeon's patients were given unnecessary heart stents/back surgeries/other treatments that didn't benefit the patient at all but turned a lot of profit for the provider? How much 'value to society' does that create?

All I'm trying to say is...value is moveable and subjective. Sure, you can say it's not fair to eat more than your share of the cake - but how on earth do we decide how big someone's share should be without potentially creating even more disparity?

Interestingly, I believe that justice in the liberal perspective in terms of equality and equity are distinct political and social principles to the extent that equality is the principle according to which all must contribute the same amount for the common good (observed the opportunity to do it to your needs), but equity is the principle by which the contributions should be allocated on a proportional, not equal, then it follows that the latter is compensatory, not simply regulatory.

Pedantic discussions about how to define 'fairness' across all philosophical circumstances only serves to muddy the real world issues faced today. "Fairness" in President Obama's context means that we should not reward companies for shipping jobs overseas, and Warren Buffet should not pay less money in taxes than his secretary. If fixing these issues means that your lazy sister doesn't suffer from the back-breaking poverty you seem to think that she richly deserves, then we can work on punishing her for her life choices later.

The best part about being a liberal is that you don't have to be right as long as you cloak your argument in emotionalism. Companies move overseas to better service markets, both markets at home and markets abroad. If you force them to stay in America you force them to close. Warren Buffet pays vastly more money in taxes than does his secretary, by any and all measures. And yes, your lazy, welfare-sucking, illegitimate-child producing cow of a sister deserves the poverty she has earned. No one has to give it to her, she gave it to herself.

More than anything, the concept of fairness is just a talking point to win favor among those too dim to think it through. The average person is going to hear Obama saying that he wants to make things fair for all Americans, and she's going to embrace him for it. Don't we want to live in a society that gives everyone an equal chance to succeed? Of course we do.

Unfortunately, life isn't fair, fairness itself is complex, and it's unlikely that the minor changes *any* politician makes will somehow create lasting improvement across the board.

You are correct in suspecting fairness will be the central plank in the President Obama's platform for re-election against Mitt Romney.

Is it fair that Romney failed to disclose his Swiss bank account income, thereby avoiding US taxes? The average American has taxes deducted before they get their pay check. Note that the average American my age thinks that anyone with a Swiss bank account is at best un-American and at worst a Crook.

Is it fair that Romney used his special tax status at Bain to protect himself against risk and enrich himself while average Americans do not have that privilege? Now he wants to be our president? It was legal but can he really lead us in a tax reform debate with congress?

It SHOULD be the case that fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments" because all citizens, including dumb people, have a right to understand the issues important to them before they cast their votes.

Your confusion as to what is considered fair here in America can be answered by your reading of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. It clearly states WHAT we the people,not as individual persons, have a right to be considered as fair. Our three branches of governments work as checks and balances to insure that fairness.

The only obligation of an American citizen is to obey the law. That includes both the richest and poorest of us all. There is no "fair share" other than what we determine as law. That is why the rich can get tax breaks when it benefits the nations economy, and have them taken away when it doesn't. And why a person can refuse to work and still have their needs taken care of. And yes, entitlements are called that because citizens are entitled to the tax revenue used to provide those benefits. And there is a rational reason for that.

All this may baffling to people outside the Unites States. I believe your concept of economic fairness has been influenced more by Milton Friedman's ideas than by Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments.

If we think clearly about Bible teachings, then we understand why much of society goes wrong today. Someone said, "If you rob Peter and give to Paul, then you can always count on Paul's support." This seems to be President Obama's modius operanda.

However, Jesus said,

14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’

21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’

23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’

24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Thus, we have a message to everyone. You should not be a slacker. If you fail to work to your fullest and provide for yourself, then it often turns out badly in the end. However, God makes no promises that life will be without trouble.

Too many in todays society want to be slackers and then expect others to support them when they have failed to provide for themselves.

They fail to heed the lesson of Aesop's fable about the Grasshopper and the Ants.

In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:

Obama is the most extreme left wing President to ever sit in the White House. When he says fairness he mean the Government is in total control of everything and anything it lets you keep is what he considers fair.

The land of opportunity gives tax breaks to employers to provide healthcare insurance for employees.
People on welfare get free healthcare. Yes, I Know this must be a shock to you that welfare actually exists in the USA after being brainwashed by the European media but yeah social security has existed for over 70 years now in evil capitalist America ever since FDR's new deal.

It doesn't come as a shock to me that social welfare exists in the United States, but I hardly hold it up as a model to the rest of the world - the provision of health care in particular.
And for the record, I actually have to endure the Australian media, the vast majority of which is acutely afraid of criticising America (according to much of the reasoning we have to show no hint of independence when it comes to relations with the U.S. for fear of being swamped by scary Asians in the absence of military and naval bases in Darwin).
I suggest to you, then, that it is in fact possible to come to a conclusion critical of the United States that does not involve a process of 'brainwashing', association with Islamism, or any other horrible influence threatening our freedom and life as we know it.

Americans were fortunate to create a government founded on essential human rights and in design ruled by the people through a system of checks and balances. Americans were also fortunate to have a continental market, and particularly in the second half of the 20th Century, unprecedented economic growth and widespread prosperity.

Well before President Obama these circumstances began to change. The rise of money in politics drove the parties from the center outward to the extremes of the left and right where small cadres of extremely rich and ideologically enthusiastic donors can be found.

The use of market and quasi-market polities in developing economies, accelerated by technology, created competition for American economic leadership to which America responded poorly--40 years of Democrats and Republicans promoting widespread home ownership as the route to middle class prosperity diverted attention and resources from more productive things that might well have eased the adjustment into a more competitive world. When the bubble burst, $14 trillion in household wealth was lost.

For Americans, ''working hard and playing by the rules'' meant that one could do well enough to raise a family and have a comfortable middle class life.

But that has changed and Americans don't understand how or why. Many are angry about what seems ''unfair,'' not understanding, for example, why banks should be bailed out but the housing market allowed to ''bottom out'' or why bonuses on Wall Street should reach record levels just a year after the Great Recession ended while unemployment is lingers at near-record levels.

President Obama's SOTUS was written at an eighth grade reading level for a reason--American political rhetoric has been reduced to a set of talking points often passed through focus groups, the very kind of empty words that Orwell described in ''Politics and the English Language.''

I am quite sure that, given the proper elevated forum, Obama could articulate very precisely what he means by fairness and describe how he came to his beliefs.

But American politics does not allow anything like that level of public thought or expression, which is why this column seems so completely pointless.

Ok folks. I decided to add a little fun to this “fairly” interesting blog, so I did a little exercise, with Countries, GDPs, Populations and the Riches. Want to talk “fairness”, “equality”, “gaps”, “unfairness”, etc? Let’s do it!

The combined fortunes of the top 15 richest Americans add to $361 billion (see list in Forbes). From the poorest to richest countries (GDP by countries) adding their GDPs, there are 70! (you heard me right). Seventy countries where all the GDPs combined add to 367 millions. Roughtly the same amount of $ of FIFTEEN individuals in the US. Give and take 5 or 6 billion.

Their combined populations add to approximately 400 million; and spare me the “well the US has 310” so the relationship of those same 15 guys fortunes to the US population is similar. It is not. These are the poorest countries (as in Nations!) in the planet.

Of course you can take the list (which I got from multiple sites to get the GDPs and populations) and do multiple combinations: for example instead of the first 50, take the middle ones or arbitrary, and add the GDPs until you get to some $360. No matter how is sliced, these rich men (not criminals, not exploiters, just plain business people) have more money than entire nations.

Now, if I ever find myself going to the barricades (very unlikely), it will be for a super common-sense lacking utopia cause of this magnitude, that will disturb me enough to set aside my devotion and support for civilian’s individual liberties. Until then, you will not find me protesting with some smelly hippies ipods-in-hand in Downtown Manhattan, surrounded by marvelous rascals and lots of Starbucks coffee shops. Sorry, got laundry to do.

I would love to see how many Hindus, Muslims, people of Middle Eastern or Indian origin are in the Obama cabinet, department of justice or any other area of Obma's government. Does he favor fairness and equal opportunity for EVERYONE? Does Obama work with or antagonize India ? Compare this with what the Republicans consider equality and justice. Does Obama think college and other educational/employment opportunities should be equal regardless of race, religion, or citizenship status , or is that the platform of the Republican party? It would make it easier for Indians and Americans of Indian origin decide which party they belong to.

"I would conclude not that judgments of fairness are purely subjective, but that the rhetoric of fairness is used so opportunistically that we would be wise to look upon arguments from fairness with a jaundiced eye."

Did the author of this post consider the inverse case? If fairness can be subjective, then unfairness, is also equally subjective. Under these circumstances, wildly high marginal tax rates on the very highest incomes can't be said to be unfair in the same way as a flat tax could not be argued as fair.

A 'fair' society is one which makes the best use of its resources both environmental and human, especially when in competition or trade with other societies. In as much as the wealthy may bequeath advantage to their children, in term of education that's all well and good, but to leave a large number to languish without access to a strong education or work ethic is a giant waste of human potential. To encourage indolence via a debt driven consumerist society, solely attracted the low hanging fruit efforts, crass individualism or corporatism is counter productive and maladaptive.

"A 'fair' society is one which makes the best use of its resources both environmental and human, especially when in competition or trade with other societies."

But isn't "fair" just a euphemism for "OK" and "unfair" for "not-ok"? Also when you say "best" is this really an informative statement? What is best, after all? Isn't that the question at issue?

Can we all agree that individualism is crass and not heroic? That having debts encourages indolence and not work? Is it to avoid unfairness that the wealthy would choose to pay more tax or would it be to avoid living in a society where others were forced to starve or steal?

Fair is one of those expressions that touch on behavior traits found in social creatures.

In as much as human primates are a herd animal, and we very much are, 'fairness' is a necessary faculty to sanction parasitic (selfish) behavior that takes advantage of group resources. You can't have viable social species without it.

All of your questions are good questions to ask, but I'm not going to attempt to answer them, here!

I am characterizing some forms of individualism as crass, just as some forms of group think are crass. Certainly the individual who commits a hit and run is exercising crass (and criminal) individualism. Somebody who plays their sound system at
1:00 am to the detriment of his neighbors is also exhibiting crass individualism. And so on and so forth.

'Best' is in the sense of not letting go to "waste". If a population has 10% individuals good at inventing things that are considered needed and desirable, and the more the merrier, but only 1% of those individuals are trained to utilize those talents, one can say there is waste. 'Best' though is highly circumstantial.

The larger issue is not so much _what_ specific answer is made, but that American society has tended to dilute any consensus concept of it. We become cellular automata, with all the draw backs of a multicellular organism, and none of its advantages.

Fair enough. But when we talk about fairness we aren't really taking the role of anthropologists to our own society. We really care and not just because we think there is an evolutionary advantage to these beliefs.

I think it is true that most people's informed idea of fairness is closer than their uninformed idea but this is just because there are more ways of having incorrect beliefs than correct ones.

Ultimately we will all come to the end of justifications for our ideas of fairness and no further information will change them. Yet differences will remain. What then can we do but act, and learn?

I concur that equality of the rules (largely impacted in America by the overcomplexity of the rules) ought to be bipartisan consensus and the first order of business. In fact it is consensus--both sides of the aisle would rather argue the other two inequalities (opportunity and outcome) than dismantle the mess of rules they have--exercising equality of opportunity among political parties--together and individually made. And thus the last order of business.

If OWS wants to take up a somewhat universal cause, eliminating half of the volume of U.S. Code and regulations would be a starting point.